Chicago Shady Dealer

Why Two Dakotas?

By President Benjamin Harrison
Jan. 24, 2015

WASHINGTON 1889 — In this historical moment, I, President Benjamin Harrison, have decided to cement my lasting legacy by adding two new states— North Dakota and South Dakota— to our great union. For several years it has been apparent that our growing population requires more food. The best option for meeting this need is to create a new state that can grow corn, wheat, and snow for our nation’s consumption. The suggestion that the Dakota Territory become a state has already been made many times in Washington. But one state is simply not enough. In order to secure enough food for our future, we need two new states.

Furthermore, two states give us more geopolitical security. Previously, the breadbasket of our nation had been the great state of Nebraska. However, the Secretary of War brought to my attention the fact that we need a buffer zone to protect Nebraska from Canadian aggression. One state between Canada and Nebraska is not a sufficient border; we need two states. If an evil march of Mounties were to descend from Canada, twice as many people would notice the invasion because there are now two states. We will do our utmost to fortify North Dakota with strong weapons to deter any attack. God forbid the army makes it to the South Dakota Black Hills. The very spirits of my greatest predecessors would make them fall to their knees in awe.

My vision for the two Dakotas consists of thriving, well-connected cities. I want to develop each state’s cultural identity and ensure they develop booming, cosmopolitan urban centers, far larger than Chicago or Minneapolis. I want Devil’s Lake, North Dakota and Spearfish, South Dakota to be the manufacturing hubs of the next era. The railroads, which have already contributed to the economic well-being of these states, will continue to be a safe, well-utilized mode of transportation.

People may ask, “Mr. President, why not give different names to these two states, such as ‘Dakota’ and ‘New Canada’?” My response, respectfully, is that our great union already has states with directions in their names. In naming what became the Dakotas, I struggled with what to call each part. East Dakota and West Dakota? I almost immediately eliminated this option, because it reminded me strongly of West Virginia. Central Dakota and Outer Dakota? It’s very difficult to draw circles on a map, and I have a hard enough time comprehending how the Vatican City fits into Rome. Then I had to consider all the intercardinal directions, but I certainly did not want to appear to be imitating Canada’s Northwest Territory. In the end, I decided on North and South Dakota. Four rectangles stacked on top of each other just look really nice on a map.